Tag Archives: freedom of speech

Majority Rules or Does It?

Can the minority actually allow the majority to rule? Even in divisive issues like abortion, racism, and military action?

Our governing document, the U.S. Constitution, tends toward realism. The first words are: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . .”

The first union, under the Articles of Confederation, after the war for independence from Britain, was a failure. That union proved unworkable, more a collection of individual nation states failing to act as one nation.

This new attempt to create a “more perfect” union implied the impossibility of an actual perfect union. We are always striving for it.

Almost any issue can cause conflict. Most conflicts involve small numbers of people, however. Bigger issues often are ones of conscience.

On these bigger issues, some will strongly disagree with whatever action is taken. To use violence in response, however, only invites the other side toward actions of violence. Almost always, the conflict deepens, leading to harm of innocent people.

Perhaps the first reaction to what one considers an unjust law is patience and the realization that no one of us is perfect.

One avenue in such a time is speaking out. One of our most precious freedoms is freedom of speech. We use it to encourage what we believe are better laws and solutions, but in humility, knowing that our human reasoning is subject to error.

Some may consider civil disobedience—an act of simply not obeying the law, but not violently or in ways that would harm others.

For Americans, subject to strong beliefs and tendencies to see issues framed in black and white, restraint is difficult. Yet, patient wearing away is better by far than violence. Such patient action in the past has led to eventual major changes.

Avoid Flaming Up

 

Our small island recently was invaded by a hate group, inflaming passions. Like the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, several people attempted to pass out hate literature to the public in several of our communities.

The literature wasn’t an intelligent discussion of a point of view, but epithet hurling diatribes.

Some citizens were incensed and called the police. The police came and watched but said no laws were broken. The group operated within their rights of free speech.

Those who ignored them appeared to offer the best response, in some cases silently walking around them on the sidewalk. It seemed the best response was indeed a refusal to engage, thus depriving the group of the attention they craved.

Such episodes illustrate the necessity for  exercising wisdom in our encounters in this deeply divided country. Blessed is a discussion between two citizens of differing opinions ruled by common courtesy. Each may learn something. They may even be able to compromise on a few issues or at least retain respect for the beliefs of the other.

Our Right To Say Outrageous Things

 

Members of Westboro Baptist Church picket the funerals of soldiers killed in the line of duty.

Their message is offensive to those who mourn loved ones. Courts in the U.S. have judged that the picketers have the right to protest even if their actions are scorned by the majority of Americans.

Some of our election campaigns trumpet messages demeaning to various candidates. Atheists and evangelical Christians routinely trade barbs.

Our ideals of free speech, which allow for the expression of sometimes unpopular views, remain difficult for those in the non-Western world to fathom. We see this in the protests over the video trailer demeaning the Muslim prophet Mohamed. Some press for “blasphemy” laws against such acts. Christians and other minority religions in countries like Egypt and Pakistan fear these laws, which have been used to persecute them.

In our current political campaigns in this country, we have passed the level of civility. Some ads resemble pitched battles rather than a discussion of the issues between intelligent citizens. Nevertheless, our freedom of speech remains precious. I can only encourage public revulsion against that which destroys rather than enlightens. In this country, corrections to excesses are always possible.

I have found my Christian faith strengthened by listening to those who don’t believe as I do. I develop reasons for my faith that allow an honest dialog with those of differing beliefs. A faith protected by laws can become a tepid faith.

The Right to Persuade Versus Intolerance

The doorbell rings. Two women want to discuss a religion you are not interested in. You tell them no thanks and shut the door.

You notice that you have lost weight on your new diet. You plan to tell your slightly overweight friend about the diet. She might like to try it, too.

You open the mail. A letter from your bank outlines a service you do not want. You toss it in the trash.

You read an article about two schools of thought concerning a new treatment for skin cancer. It will require more testing and rigorous debate as to which has the best cure rate, least side effects, and so on.

You read another article about Bhutan, an Asian nation in the eastern Himalaya mountains, predominantly Buddhist. Bhutan’s constitution guarantees religious freedom, but conversion is unlawful. Buddhism is, for many, a part of their country’s culture. Bhutan’s Christians have sought clarification. Bhutan’s Prime Minister Jigmi Yoser Thinley states his opposition to religious conversion: “It’s the worst form of intolerance. And it divides families and societies.”

When do we have the right to attempt the persuasion of someone to a set of convictions that are meaningful to us? And to what degree should we persuade? Or should we ever persuade?

Is it intolerant to believe, as in one of the above examples, that one cancer treatment may be better than another and to lobby for that practice?

Attempts to persuade range from political and religious arguments to medical debates and ads for commercial products. Some are hardly life altering, but some are. Some can be proved by the scientific method, and some can’t.

Our Constitution gives this country’s citizens the right to freedom of speech and of religion. A few use these freedoms in ways that we abhor, but diverse views are a necessary part of growth and advancement. Cultures become static if debate and change are forbidden. Political ads may annoy us but few of us would choose to live in Syria or other countries where opposing views that question the regime are not allowed. Persuasion becomes intolerance when the persuader fails to respect another’s opinions or the person’s right to choose or to be left alone if they wish.

Of course, opening a culture to possible change is risky. Could Christianity threaten our American way of life—discouraging rampant consumerism, for example—if genuinely practiced?